跳至正文
返回文库全部文档

用隐含波动率与GARCH预测股票波动率

文章 Quant Q&A · 作者: Winnie

总结

本文对比了估计股票波动率的前瞻性方法与回顾性方法。若预测期限与期权到期日一致,平值远期隐含波动率可作为基于市场的估计。由于隐含波动率可能高于之后实现的波动率,回答建议用历史数据估计这一溢价,或进行粗略调整。文中将VIX描述为衡量预期 S&P 500 波动率的隐含指标,而VIX期货反映市场对未来某一日期波动率的预期。

对于基于过去收益率的预测,文中提到了GARCH模型,尤其是GJR-GARCH和EGARCH,这些模型可以体现负面股票冲击对波动率的影响可能大于正面冲击这一倾向。文中引用了一项比较隐含波动率方法与其他模型的研究,但没有提供详细的表现结果。材料强调,波动率难以预测,估计结果可能出现严重偏差,从而导致风险管理产生不恰当的信心。这些方法只是起点,并非可靠保证。

核心观点

  • 使用隐含波动率时,应使期权到期日与波动率预测期限相匹配。
  • 隐含波动率可能因溢价而高于实现波动率,可用历史数据估计该溢价。
  • VIX期货反映市场对未来隐含波动率的预期,而VIX衡量 S&P 500 隐含波动率。
  • GJR-GARCH和EGARCH可以考虑股票波动率对正面与负面冲击的非对称反应。
  • 波动率预测存在不确定性,应将其视为参考,因为预测误差可能影响风险评估。

标签

全文
# How would you forecast volatility without using any programming languages or machine learning or anything of that sort?


# How would you forecast volatility without using any programming languages or machine learning or anything of that sort?












I am trying to forecast volatility. I am on the tactical asset allocation team. No one on our team knows machine learning or any programming languages. We are fundamental equity research analysts trying to find a way to forecast volatility. We were thinking of maybe using the VIX futures?

## Answer by RWP - Down by the Bay (score 3, accepted)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/53149

For asset allocation purposes I would use implied volatility on atmf options on the underlying with a maturity close to the term in which you are interested. There will be some premium in there so you can run a regression and find out how much premium on average is in there historically, or you can just divide by 1.1, which is a good approximation for the premium.

Example: Say 1mo S&P atmf options trade with implied volatility of 50, then your estimate for 1mo vol is 50/1.1 = 45.5

## Answer by Alba (score 6)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/53134

Basically, you have to choose whether to use a forward-looking or a backward-looking method of forecasting volatility. Let's start with the VIX. The VIX is an implied volatility index. Option pricing models require the volatility of the underlying asset as an input. Volatility is not an observed quantity, so the people who are pricing the options have to estimate it. This means that you can plug the market price of the option back into the pricing formula, and solve it backwards for the volatility, which will then roughly correspond to the market's estimate of what the volatility will be during the maturity period of the option. The VIX is an index that tracks this implied volatility, the underlying being the S&P 500 index. It used to be calculated on the S&P 100 index using index options, but nowadays the CBOE has switched the methodology to using the broader S&P 500 and a "variance swap"-based calculation. The interpretation is however basically the same, it measures how large the volatility is expected to be over the next 12 months. This is a forward-looking volatility measure: It incorporates information of what the market believes that the volatility will be in the future. See this whitepaper for more details.

VIX futures are futures on implied volatility. This means that their payoff is based on what the market, at some time in the future, will believe that the volatility will be during some maturity period. I am not sure why you would use futures on the VIX rather than just using the VIX itself.

The alternative is a backward-looking measure, i.e. forecasting volatility tomorrow based on what it has been during some period in the (recent) past. Then, a good place to start would be GARCH models (Generalized Autoregressive Conditional Heteroskedasticity). This is a (very) broad class of models, but I'd say that for equity, you might want to look into the GJR-GARCH model of Glosten, Jagannathan and Runkle (1993) or the E-GARCH model of Nelson (1991). The volatility of equity tends to be asymmetric, i.e. negative shocks might affect volatility more harshly as compared to positive shocks. The GJR- and EGARCH models take this into account.

Becker et. al (2007) compare implied volatility-based models to the performance of other types of volatility models. Many of these are very involved. I want to emphasize that forecasting volatility is a difficult endeavour, and from a risk-management perspective, there are arguments in favour of the view that one should not even attempt it. It can give you a false sense of security. Any volatility forecast should not be interpreted as certain, but rather as an indication that is prone to being terribly wrong.

在遵守原作品许可的前提下,附作者信息全文展示。 许可协议: CC BY-SA 4.0 (Stack Exchange)

此摘要由 Stratmill 研究智能体根据原文撰写,并非原文副本。